Msgr. William J. Lynn leaves a Philadelphia courthouse in late May as the jury deliberates in his trial on child endangerment charges. Msgr. Lynn was later found guilty of one charge and acquitted on two others. (CNS photo/Scott Anderson, Reuters)

The single guilty verdict last month in the
high-profile criminal abuse trial in Philadelphia was historic. Msgr. William
J. Lynn became the first Catholic official in the United States to be convicted
for the crime of allowing a priest suspected of abuse to continue in ministry
with access to children.

“I thought I was helping people,” Msgr. Lynn testified
during the trial. “I thought I was helping priests, and in those
circumstances, I thought I was helping victims, as much as I could.”

But Lynn’s efforts were not enough. His
failure with regard to one abusive priest convinced a jury that he was guilty
of one of the charges of endangering the welfare of a child.

The verdict surely gave a sense of consolation
and satisfaction to those who were so grievously harmed by criminal abusive
clergy. Of this we must be mindful.

A groundbreaking precedent?

Many observers have declared that the guilty
verdict will encourage other prosecutors across the country to pursue actions
against Catholic officials for crimes committed years ago.

“This is the first time that someone
responsible for the supervision has been held to that civil accountability,”
Boston College’s Rev. Raymond Helmick, a Jesuit priest, told the Wall Street Journal after the verdict. “That is a
precedent that may go very far. I’m sure all kinds of people are itching to
bring criminal cases against many, many authorities, and we’ll have to see how
far it goes.”

The notorious Church-suing attorney Jeff
Anderson, based in Minnesota, similarly opined,
“This trial is unprecedented; it has set a pathway and a standard for
prosecutors across the United States.”

But are such observations correct? Looking at what
transpired with the Philadelphia cases, the outlook for future prosecutions in
other areas of the country is not as clear as some might think.

One for seven

In truth, after reviewing the original claims
of the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office at the start of the case and
then looking at the actual results of the trial, one can see that the
prosecution’s cases against the two defendantsMsgr. Lynn and Father James
Brennanwere largely disproven. Though the media would have you believe
otherwise, the overall case presented by Philadelphia District Attorney Seth
Williams was mostly a failure.

When the first witness took the stand in the
monumental trial during the last week in March, there were two men facing seven
serious criminal charges. Msgr. William Lynn faced two charges of conspiracy
and two charges of endangering the welfare of a child. Father James Brennan
faced one charge each of conspiracy, attempted rape, and endangering the
welfare of a child.

By the time the jury returned to the courtroom
with their verdicts three months later, however, only one of those seven
original charges actually returned a guilty verdict.

What happened?

Much of the prosecution’s case centered on the
bold claim that Msgr. Lynn and other Philadelphia clergy actually committed conspiracythat
clerics acted deliberately with the intention that
children be abused.

It was a wild accusation, indeed. At the start
of the trial, one could not help but wonder what kind of evidence the District
Attorney’s Office planned on presenting to demonstrate that the Archdiocese of
Philadelphia was willfully operating some kind of child-sex campaign.

As it turned out, there was no such evidence.
After nearly two months of testimony and nearly 50 witnesses called to the
stand, while the trial was still in session in the middle of May, Judge M.
Teresa Sarmina dismissed most of the counts of conspiracy against Msgr. Lynn
and Father Brennan. The prosecution’s conspiracy charges were so baseless and
unwarranted that the judge concluded that the charges should not even be
deliberated by the jury. (One conspiracy charge remained against Msgr. Lynn,
and the jury later acquitted him of it.)

It was a significant victory for the two
defendants, but one would have hardly known it from the media coverage. In most
news reports, the dismissals merited only a passing mention.

Following the completion of the trial, the
jury foreman, 35-year-old Isa Logan, appeared on a local television morning
program to talk about the trial and the conspiracy charges that had been levied
against Msgr. Lynn.

“None of us understood or believed that [Msgr.
Lynn] had the understanding that here’s a predator priest, I’ll help him get to
another parish so he can continue to enjoy what he likes to do,” Logan stated.
“None of us believed that.”

In the end, Msgr. Lynn was found guilty of
only one of the four charges he faced. The cleric acknowledged that he knew
that Edward Avery was ministering at a parish in the vicinity of children even
though Avery had received a credible complaint years earlier of sex abuse.
Avery was then accused of abuse in his new assignment, and it is because of
this episode that Lynn was found guilty of a third-degree felony of
“endangering the welfare of a child.”

Did the Philadelphia DA misapply
the law?

One aspect of the Philadelphia trial that has
not been widely reported is that the verdict appears ripe for an appeal. For an
appeal to be successful, an attorney must show that a significant error in law
or judgment was made during the trial, and this certainly appears to be the
case with Msgr. Lynn.

Again, the crime for which Lynn was convicted
was endangering the welfare of a child (EWOC). On the surface, it would appear
that Lynn did indeed endanger children by allowing an abusive priest to remain
in an assignment in which the cleric had access to children. But this
Pennsylvania statute had historically only been applied to those who had direct
supervision of children (e.g., parents, coaches, teachers, etc.), not to those
who simply managed employees.

Indeed, Msgr. Lynn did not directly care for
children. Here merely acted as a liaison for priests from his diocesan office.

Most surprisingly, the Philadelphia District
Attorney’s Office actually
admitted in its 2005 grand jury report that Pennsylvania’s
endangerment statute did not apply to Msgr. Lynn. In the 2005 report, Assistant
District Attorney Mariana Sorensen and attorney Marci Hamilton, representing
the Survivors Network of Those Abused by Priests, wrote:

The [EWOC]
statute confines its coverage to parents, guardians, or other persons “supervising
the welfare of a child.” High-level archdiocese officials [like Msgr. Lynn],
however, were far removed from any direct contact with children.

In other words, Philly prosecutors publicly
admitted in 2005 that they were unable to prosecute Msgr. Lynn under the EWOC
statute. The law simply did not apply to him.

Therefore, an obvious question remains: why
did the District Attorney’s Office prosecute Msgr. Lynn under the EWOC statute
in 2011 when it already acknowledged in 2005 that it could not charge him with
it?

It’s a very reasonable question, and it is
surely one that Lynn’s lawyers will be asking during his appeal. One of Lynn’s
attorneys, Alan J. Tauber, reviewed 280 cases in Pennsylvania involving the
EWOC statute and found that none of the
cases were applied to supervisors of employees.

“[Msgr. Lynn’s case is] one of the clearest
cases for reversal that I’ve ever seen based on the application of the law,” Tauber concluded.

In the 2005 report, the attorneys recommended
that the EWOC statute be amended to include not just those who directly
supervise children, but also those who supervise employees. And this
recommendation was followed. In 2007, the Pennsylvania legislature amended the
law to include managers of employees. But because of the prohibition of ex post facto prosecutions, Lynn could not be charged under
the amended 2007 statute. He exited his diocesan position in 2004.

Not an impressive precedent

The Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office
invested 10 years, three grand jury reports, a small army of government
lawyers, and countless investigative hours that climaxed with a 13-week trial
of two men facing seven criminal charges.

The prosecution also had the advantage of a
trial judge who, by all indications, granted it extraordinary favoritism by
deciding nearly every evidentiary ruling, motion, and request in its favor.
During the trial, Judge Sarmina was described
as “often mistaken for a member of the prosecution team.”

So when other prosecutors around the country
take a closer look at Philadelphia and the extensive time, money, and resources
that were expended only to return a single third-degree felony conviction and
see that this one successful verdict could very well be overturned, it is hard
to imagine them being encouraged to seek convictions against Church officials
for actions committed decades ago.

However,
prosecutions of current-day criminal wrongdoing are an entirely different
matter. For the safety of children and the good of the Church, prosecutors are
rightfully aggressive in searching out criminal failures to report child abuse
happening today. Fortunately, with the exception of a
questionable case in Kansas City against Bishop Robert Finn, such
prosecutions against Church officials have been nonexistent.

About the Author

David F. Pierre, Jr.

David F. Pierre, Jr. is creator and author of TheMediaReport.com and has written two books: Catholic Priests Falsely Accused: The Facts, The Fraud, The Stories and Double Standard: Abuse Scandals and the Attack on the Catholic Church. He is a graduate of Boston College and lives with his wife and family in Massachusetts.

All comments posted at Catholic World Report are moderated. While vigorous debate is welcome and encouraged, please note that in the interest of maintaining a civilized and helpful level of discussion, comments containing obscene language or personal attacks—or those that are deemed by the editors to be needlessly combative and inflammatory—will not be published. Thank you.